Charles Ato Amissah-Ocran

The defendant Bella Beauty Supplies Inc. brought a motion for summary judgment to dismiss the plaintiffs' claims and sought costs.

The plaintiffs had sued Bella Beauty Supplies Inc. due to a curling iron bearing the 'Bella' name, despite the defendant having no involvement with electrical products.

The court granted summary judgment, dismissing the plaintiffs' claims against Bella Beauty Supplies Inc. The court denied Bella's claim for damages beyond legal expenses, finding the evidence insufficient and the claims improperly advanced.

Regarding costs, the court found Bella entitled to costs on a partial indemnity basis, rejecting the request for substantial indemnity due to no reprehensible conduct by the plaintiffs.

The court significantly reduced the requested costs, fixing them at $3,000.00, citing Bella's excessive and disproportionate approach to litigation given the simplicity of its defense.

The Plaintiffs brought a summary judgment motion seeking damages and costs arising from the Defendants' failure to close an agreement of purchase and sale for a property.

The Defendants argued the Plaintiffs breached the contract and sought their own damages, but had not filed a counterclaim.

The court found the Defendants were in breach of contract due to their unwillingness to close the transaction, primarily due to an outstanding writ of execution.

The Plaintiffs were awarded specific damages for the deposit, property taxes, and moving expenses to rental accommodation.

The court also awarded litigation costs, but significantly reduced the amount claimed by the Plaintiffs, emphasizing proportionality and the Plaintiffs' failure to respond to a settlement offer.

A portion of damages for additional living expenses was deferred for further assessment.

The applicant filed a human rights complaint alleging discrimination by his union based on race, colour, and ethnic origin.

The Tribunal held a preliminary hearing to consider the respondents' request to dismiss the application for delay and failure to make out a prima facie case.

The Tribunal found that the applicant's allegations from 1997 and 1999 were untimely and that the delay was not incurred in good faith.

The Tribunal also found that the timely allegations regarding a threat at a union meeting and the denial of a political donation did not establish a prima facie case of discrimination under the Code.

The application was dismissed in its entirety.

The respondent bank sought a writ of possession for mortgaged residential premises.

The application judge granted the writ, finding the appellants were occupants and the appellant wife was the beneficial owner.

On appeal, the Court of Appeal set aside the order, finding the bank's application was deficient because it failed to join the named mortgagor as a party and lacked the necessary documentary evidence to establish its right to possession.

The appeal was allowed and the order set aside without prejudice to the bank's right to pursue further remedies.